tv [untitled] July 1, 2012 2:00pm-2:30pm PDT
consideration, so that made me very happy. >> his work is printed porcelain. he transfers images onto and spoils the surface a fragile shes of clay. each one, only one-tenth of an inch thick. >> it took about two years to get it down. i would say i lose 30% of the pieces that i made. something happens to them. they cracked, the break during the process. it is very complex. they fall apart. but it is worth it to me. there are photographs i took 1 hours 99 the former soviet union. these are blown up to a gigantic images. they lose resolution. i do not mind that, because my images are about the images, but they're also about the idea, which is why there is text all over the entire surface. >> marie in moved into the mansion on powell street just five years ago. its galleries are housed in one of the very rare single family
residences around union square. for the 100th anniversary of the mansion, meridian hosted a series of special events, including a world premiere reading by lawrence ferlinghetti. >> the birth of an american corporate fascism, the next to last free states radio, the next-to-last independent newspaper raising hell, the next-to-last independent bookstore with a mind of its own, the next to last leftie looking for obama nirvana. [laughter] the first day of the wall street occupation set forth upon this continent a new revolutionary nation. [applause] >> in addition to its own
programming as -- of artist talks, meridian has been a downtown host for san francisco states well-known port trees center. recent luminaries have included david meltzer, steve dixon, and jack hirsch man. >> you can black as out of the press, blog and arrest us, tear gas, mace, and shoot us, as we know very well, you will, but this time we're not turning back. we know you are finished. desperate, near the end. hysterical in your flabbergastlyness. amen. >> after the readings, the crowd headed to a reception upstairs by wandering through the other gallery rooms in the historic home. the third floor is not usually reserved for just parties, however. it is the stage for live performances. ♪
under the guidance of musical curators, these three, meridian has maintained a strong commitment to new music, compositions that are innovative, experimental, and sometimes challenging. sound art is an artistic and event that usually receives short shrift from most galleries because san francisco is musicians have responded by showing strong support for the programming. ♪ looking into meridian's future, she says she wants to keep doing the same thing that she has been doing since 1989. to enlighten and disturbed.
>> i really believe that all the arts have a serious function and that it helps us find out who we are in a much wider sense than we were before we experienced that work of art. ♪ >> this is a continuation of the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission, in the matter of the conduct charges against sheriff mercury me. we begin by taking the role.
of commission members being present, we will begin. we have a lot to cover today. i think we should jump right into it. please come to the podium. i understand ms. lopez has submitted a declaration, that the sheriff has submitted it. is she willing to come to san francisco to testify? when can she be available? >> when the commission needs her to be available. there is the matter of how she is going to get here. >> what is the matter of how she is going to get here? >> it costs money. i am not trying to be flip. who is going to play -- going to pay the airplane ticket? >> you would like the city to
pay? >> i would. >> what do the costs in tailbacks -- entail? is this a round trip? >> do i address you as your honor? >> commissioner is fine. >> if there could be advanced notice, the airplane ticket would be cheaper. with two weeks' advance notice, a regular coach ticket round trip from caracas, you are looking at roughly $1,500. it is an approximate figure. my request would be that if she were to come and testify, a tuesday evening or thursday evening, she would fly in wednesday. she would testify that day and then return home after her testimony. >> the total of the cost is the
air fare from here and back? >> i think so. >> can i hear from mr. keith or ms. kaiser on this? does the mayor have a position on the costs of bringing ms. lopez to san francisco? >> she is a defense witness. normally, we would expect a defense witness to pay for it. we would consider their request. i will take it to the mayor. this is the first i have heard of it. i am happy to take it to the mayor. >> i am sorry. i have a couple more questions. if there is not an agreement for ms. lopez to appear live, is she willing to appear by video testimony? >> it is interesting. i have thought about it. i do not think skype would work. my preference is that she would come here to testify. i have never seen the president
of skype testimony. i have a difficult time in my experience. it drops. sometimes it works. sometimes it does not. ms. lopez was also listed by the mayor's office as a witness. >> the sheriff has submitted a declaration in support of the defense. she is here to be cross- examined by the mayor. any witness who does not appear for testimony, the declaration is going to receive little to no weight. given the status of her declaration, her testimony, whether live or by skype, is likely something that would give
the declaration she submitted more weight, because she will have been subjected to cross- examination. >> i believe my client is credible, telling the truth. that is why i am saying i want her to get to be here. >> are you saying you will not make her available by skype? >> i am saying i want to use all my efforts to get her personally here, so you can view her. you can see how credible she is. you can watch her demeanor as she testifies. i am saying my wish, commissioner, is that we get her here, but i figure out some way that she can be present. in a fallback position, perhaps -- i am reluctant to say yes, that she is willing to skype. it seems to me maybe that would almost forfeit the effort to try to get her to be here.
my preference is, and ms. lopez 's preference, is that she appeared before you to give testimony. my plan does not have resources. -- my client does not have resources. her husband does not have a job. i know this is an unusual situation. that is why i am asking -- >> she is outside of the subpoena power of this body. >> i know. >> i am not aware of any authority the commission has to compel the mayor or any other city agency to pay for this trip. if they do not do it voluntarily, our options are video or no live testimony. >> i appreciate that, commissioners. i am saying to you that i hope
that the mayor's office will pay approximately $1,500, so she can be brought here for them to cross-examine her, and you can see her testimony. if the amounts that are unwilling to do it, i will try to figure out some other way. maybe i will have a raffle. maybe i will have a collection. if that does not work, the fallback position would be skype. what i am trying to get across is that i am trying to have it be that ms. lopez gets to appear before you. >> i appreciate that. i agree that her being live would be preferable. it would allow us to evaluate the testimony better than skype. i have done skype examinations. it is better than nothing. you have to work out the details in advance. >> maybe i can speak with the mayor's representatives, and at the break we can figure something out. i think that is what they would
want as well. >> thank you. before we let you go, and there may be some other questions -- are you telling me that she could be available on july 18 or 19, either live or by skype? >> yes, commissioner. >> any other questions while we have heard? if you would not mind sticking around a few minutes? >> absolutely. mr. kopp, this is a witness from home you submitted a declaration on the sheriff's behalf.
i do not know exactly how this would work, to share in the cost of the ticket to bring ms. lopez here. >> not at the present moment. if the mayor were to reinstate his pay, pending the outcome of these proceedings, would be able to get that done. there is the willingness. there is just not the resources. >> i understand. any questions for mr., regarding this issue? -- for mr. kopp, regarding this issue? mr. keith, when you think you will have an answer on this issue? >> i can talk to the mayor tomorrow. i may not have an answer by
tomorrow, but certainly, some time shortly after, i could have an answer. >> much appreciated. thank you, sir. we also should deal with the declaration that ms. lopez submitted, and whether or not the mayor has objections to that declaration. i am not going to require that you make them orally, or that we address them now, given that she would not be testifying until the middle of july. do you have objections to her declaration? >> we do, commissioner, in terms of when we could have them put together, i expect the second week of july. i will not have much time next week to do it. there is one basic objection that i wanted to call the attention of counsel, which is
t of the declaration is not valid, because it does not state it is worn under penalty of perjury, which is required for any declaration executed outside the state of california, to make it a valid both. -- valid oath. if they can cure it, i wanted to give them notice of that right away. >> ok. why don't we have the objection to the lopez declaration by july 9? it is not particularly long. >> i could do it by the 10th. >> by july 10.
if the sheriff would like to submit a response, we can do that by -- a week? july 17? >> i am not a huge fan of capering you folks. presumably, i would be able to make my arguments orally. we have those states down. july 10, for any objections, july 17 for any response. the next issue, as it relates to ms. lopez, is the video. i understand that you did not
submit a brief in response to the mayor's brief. >> correct. what is your position, with respect to the video? >> i would stand on the objections i believe we made previously, that it is here say, not subject to an exception. i know commissioner randy was interested in why you might decide this differently than the superior court. i will reiterate that i do not think the superior court ruling on this issue provides any sort of collateral. i think there is no probity between parties. i think you folks are a completely different body, and you can decide this issue for yourselves. we believe the superior court wrongly decides the issue. i submit. >> having reviewed the brief, and having reviewed the video, i
think the video is admissible. i think that, under the case law, it does qualify as an excited utterance. i think it also could be admissible to indicate physical injury and describe it. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on the admissibility of the lopez video. commissioner liu? commissioner liu: i agree we are not bound by the superior court. but i also agree that, in reviewing the video and the case authority cited in the brief, that it does meet the criteria for the perce exception under evidence code 1240. she was cheerful, emotional, and
holding in her speech. i do not think it is very different from what was described in the case cited by the mayor's office. >> just from the perspective of a lay person, we would not be here. we would not be going through any of this, if it were not for that video. i think we certainly should take a look at it as a commission. i think it is absolutely relevant and important for us to see it. >> i just want to say that my client continues to assert that that video was a privilege to video, made in the context of an attorney-client relationship. that has been shot down, but, for the record, had my client
not [inaudible] >> hearing no objection from the commission, i think we should preliminarily admit the video. it should come into evidence. the other declarations, unless the commission thinks there is something else we should discuss, with respect to ms. lopez? there is one thing. mr. keith and mr. kopp, do either of you have an objection to ms. lopez appearing by skype if payment of her plane ticket cannot be worked out? >> no. >> commissioner, i do not know if we have an objection. the reason is this. when this issue was raised by
the other side, we did some research into the validity of oaths and testimony given from abroad. it is not clear to us that, under the various treaties that govern these, that the oath would be valid. i do not have any other problem with the testimony being by skype. we are not convinced that the of itself would be valid, and we are not sure if that is a risk we want to take, given the validity of the oath. >> let us say that we take the testimony. we get the transcript. we send the transcript to ms. lopez. she signs the transcript, under penalty of perjury. does that obviate your concern? >> i think it would. >> great. thank you. i apologize. this is the third time i have asked you to come up, and i appreciate your willingness.
indeed. do you have any objection to bringing the transcript, if this occurs by skype? we have a transcript that is transcribed in san francisco of the testimony that would occur in caracas. have ms. lopez review the transcript and sign it, under penalty of perjury of the state of california. >> i have no problem. i apologize. i should have figured that out, that it should have said under penalty of perjury of the state of the laws of california. i am sorry. >> i know this may sound mechanical, but is there a way for you to resubmit the declaration? >> i am going to, absolutely. it may not get resubmitted until monday, but i will have an appropriate signature page. >> it should be re-signed.
>> it will be. >> thank you. ok. other declarations? i want to commend both sides for the helpful work he did on the madison objections. i think that while we can disagree with certain positions you may have taken, i appreciate both of you working to come to resolution on things, and having us focus on what is likely the more important portions of these. >> thank you. it did take more than an hour, though. [laughter] >> i would join in the chairman's observation. i did find it is very helpful, the way in which it was done. i do not know where the want
objections and comments in the same form, which made it very easy for me to follow. >> that was my intention. essentially, i was when to walk through it and have the commission way in. this was submitted by the mayor's office. did the mayor's office accurately reflect the stipulations of the dispute? >> there was an amendment submitted, and i agreed with it. from our perspective, it fairly sets forth the disputes. i do not know that either of us need to say anything to you folks. >> my view on this is that we go through them.
unless commissioners have any questions, agreed. ok. it appears the first dispute is paragraph 21. >> there is an initial dispute about the general hearsay objection. i wanted to make sure you did not miss that. >> to the extent that the objection is here say and relates to comments that ms. lopez made to ms. madison, consistent with our prior rulings, i would be inclined to admit those statements.
the mayor is not introducing them for a hearsay purpose. they are going to show ms. lopez's state of mind. does that mean that if we disagree with your non-hearsay purpose, you do not want us to permit it? we are allowing here say into the record. you do not want it in for perce purposes? -- for here say purposes? -- for hearsay purposes? >> for this time friend, it is relevant for mind set. it is hard to say i would not want any of it admitted. i would offer it, but it is hard
to say which of these is covered by other evidence. >> if we find it does not go to a non-hearsay purpose, there are things you would not want to come into the record, which you otherwise want to come into the record? >> i want to be frank about the other evidence the hearsay evidence might supplement. since we are covering different topics, we would offer a generally. as far as the truth of the matter, i think the state of mind is probably the most significant. >> my view is that we admit the hearsay testimony, and we decide later when we are actually evaluating the fact, or whether
it should be administrative here say. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on that. >> i have a question which may be a little bit off target. some of the testimony which we may exclude on a hearsay basis or irrelevance basis, if a witness comes in and testifies to the contrary, has that opened the door to getting this testimony come in on a credibility question? something that has troubled me, as i have thought about the declarations and the cross examination that will occur, is
that we have excluded something. if the witness testifies that x does not happen, and it is not a credibility issue when somebody else in the declaration says it did happen, i would just like a little education on that. >> i think that is the correct observation. i think that -- it has become even more correct, in light of the fact that we did this stipulation before ms. lopez's documentation king in. this would put some evidence into dispute. we may need to revisit. i am not sure exactly how we would do that, other than to may be set up a time to do it after all the testimony is in, and say that since the witness testified in this way, the statement by